Talk:Dino Rossi/archive1

1

This page is largely about the election of 2004, with dino himself discussed only at the bottom. probably best to break out a new page

Detailed chronology of the election is at Washington gubernatorial election, 2004; I see no need for it to be duplicated here and at Christine Gregoire. RadicalSubversiv E 23:37, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How is this acomplished?

his 2003 work in negotiating a budget deal which closed a budget shortfall without cutting most services or raising taxes.

How is this acomplished, if no revenue is raised and not cost is reduced? Through accounting gimmicks?

uhhh who knows. it is probably accounting gimmicks, decreasing investment and increasing borrowing. a lot of revenue goes towards government employee pension plans, a typical place where things can be manipulated without anyone feeling it for quite a while. other things, like repairs to roads, or investments in new roads, can also be delayed for years. traffic piles up but no one knows who to blame it on. if you layoff a few thousand teachers or raise gas tax by a nickel, people will notice it right away. 18:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the key word is most. This means that some services were cut but we don't know which ones or by how much. At the moment this is a bit of a weasel word that might make things sound better than they really are (or not). I found these two articles which I think apply to the budget in question: http://seattlepi.com/local/124652_specialsession02.html and http://news.theolympian.com/PalmNews/20030605/wirelessnews/21329.html

They say that most of the savings were made by freezing state employee pay with around 1000 job layoffs. I would suggest that the sentence be changed to:

Rossi was a relatively low-profile Senator until his 2003 work in negotiating a budget deal which closed a budget shortfall without raising taxes. The plan achieved broad support among both republicans and democrats although some were disappointed with the reduced funding for health care programs, lack of support for two education inititives, and the freezing of state employee pay [theolympian reference]. Slinky Puppet 13:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Is the "broad support" citable? It sounds like it was an unhappy compromise that squeaked by. Justforasecond 16:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure :) The vote passed 28-19 and got several democrats on side but in retrospect broad is too strong. Does 'support' need an adjective or is it happy enough living on its own? Slinky Puppet 18:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Question

What is the source for "Rossi stated no interest in running for Governor in 2008"? Thanks. --Lst27 (talk) 23:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

removed detail on 2004 election

I've removed the much of the detail about the 2004 election. -Justforasecond 23:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

For what reason. Near as I can tell, your removal of this info borders on vandalism. The next time you want to remove so much info, at least let people know why you did it. This is common Wikipedia practice.--Alabamaboy 01:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

This info is on the 2004 page, and the previous posters to this talk page asked that it be moved (as can be seen above). -Justforasecond 00:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Will run in 2008

Can someone confirm where Rossi has announced his bid in 2008. If not I am going to remove the sentence as it seems to be pure speculation at this time. I'm not saying he won't run, and I am almost certain that he will, but I follow this very closely and would probably be aware of any announcement.

• Unless someone objects I am going to remove this. Not my leg 17:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Removed and reworded to state that if he runs, it will be for a first term. Not my leg 21:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Why even mention the filing for the 2008 governor election? At the very least it is in the wrong section. It isn't pertinent to the 2004 Governor's election and Rossi has not formally announced his 2008 candidacy at this time. If the 2008 governor election has to be mentioned in this article it's better placed in the first section in more speculative terms. Something like 'Rossi is widely expected to be a Republican candidate for the Washington gubernatorial election, 2008.'.
      • Agree. Removed, at least until there's something encyclopedic about his future actions. But to balance the deletions, I added some biographical stuff. It's not all about elections after all! rewinn 06:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to delete the paragraph: '"Rossi has been criticized for failing to take positions on several issues that impact the state's voters. In 2005, he failed to voice on an opinion on a 9.5 cent gas tax increase that was opposed by the state Republican party and in 2007 he has not provided a clear position on a multi-billiion dollar road and transit that has been put forward to Puget Sound area voters and declined to comment on a reauthorization bill for State Children's Health Insurance Program that was approved by Congress, but vetoed by President George W. Bush.[12][13]"'

The purpose is because in staying in line with the NPOV, this is very much polictically motivated since the people who are criticizing are the party he's running against. There is nothing on the wikepedia page of his opposing candidate about people being critical of her, even though there is plenty of criticizm. I think having the article be more about who he is, instead of talking about people being critical on whether or not he has commented is much more in line with being NPOV.--usesomelogic 00:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to add properly sourced criticism of Christine Gregoire to her article, matter of fact, it is encouraged. As for the criticism of Dino Rossi here, it's being made by the political correspondents for the Seattle PI and Seattle Time, so not sure where you are getting that it is politically motivated. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It's simple, if this is supposed to be NPOV then why would someone post a critisizm unless it were to attempt to smear someone's name? Columnist critisize everyone and everything, that's kind of what they do for a living. Considering the election coming up in 2008, I don't think it's right to post things like this. I could go to Chris Gregoire's paige and post the article form the Columbian about how she's failing to help families in Clark County identify facilities and providers who have retained their license despite health and safety violations. But I won't do that because it's really not NPOV, considering it is coming up on election year.--usesomelogic 04:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usesomelogic (talk • contribs)

Usesomelogic, please remember to end your comments in (~~~~). Sinebot does not always catch unsigned comments and does not include a date and time stamp. But on to your concerns, NPOV does not mean No Point of View, it means Neutral Point of View. This means that the article is supposed to show all points of view without bias, this include negative POVs, positive POVs, and otherwise. The part that you are trying to remove is reliably sourced (see WP:RS) and (in my opinion) as neutrally worded as it can be. It is also supported by multiple reliable sources, so undue weight (see WP:UNDUE and biographies of living peoples (see WP:BLP]] concerns are addressed. I could attribute (see WP:ATT) the sentence if you would like, but Rossi's not taking a position on key issues is documented in a number of reliable sources, so it is more a general criticism for him rather than a specifically attributable one. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Scandal involving this page

Interesting article in the Seattle Times today about the misinformation placed on Dino's Wikipedia page (as well as several others) by Gregoire's former campaign spokesman. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002958137_campaign28m.html ---above anonymous contribution on 29 April 2006 by user:Coz 11

Actually, the SeaTimes article says nothing about misinformation. It says:

"In Rossi's case, the changes came more than a year after the election.

"The most significant change was the inclusion of this paragraph:

"During the 2004 election, Rossi portrayed himself as moderate Republican. However, he was stung throughout the campaign by a Seattle Times exposé which implicated him in questionable business practices. He was also hurt when it was revealed that he had exaggerated his business credentials. Finally, a series of articles in different papers documented that many of his biographical claims were untrue."

It is not clear which of the above is misinformation. And, of course, because the edits occured a year after the campaign, they could not have affected the campaign's outcome. rewinn 06:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

2008 campaign

Is it really known if he is working on his 2008 campaign as it says at the very beginning of this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crd721 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

It's not confirmed, by due to the closeness of his defeat, he's the most likely candidate. But considering the paragraph about his "2008 Campaign" was deleted, no reason to include reference of it in the intro. --Bobblehead 10:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Latest on Rossi

Does anyone have enough info to write something on Rossi's latest venture? http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/07/04/10/100loc_a1sox001.cfm Gnarlyone 11:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dinorossi.JPG

Image:Dinorossi.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I was given a message about uploading Rossi's picture, but I am not the one who uploaded it, and although I do share an IP with someone, the other person who uses wikipedia on my IP I know did not upload it, he doesnt have any images, and doesnt even know how to use a scanner. Crd721 05:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Section removals

Discussion about this removal moved from my talk page
I have no idea how to use this thing, or how to communicate, but will try my best here.....what I have done is simply taken out a paragraph on Dino Rossi that seems to be politically motivated. With an election year coming up, talking about how a candidate has been "criticized", when the people who are criticizing him are from the party he is running against, is not staying in the NPOV guidelines. If you look at the person who he is going against there is nothing there about what people are critisizing her for. I can understand taking out someof my political rants, but in this case I'm just trying to keep it in line with what your guilines state NPOV. Please let me know if this works. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usesomelogic (talk • contribs)

It seems like the criticism is sourced to a columnist in one of Seattle's two major daily papers. While it is reasonable to guess he is being criticized on the same points by partisans (and that the columnist himself has specific views). NPOV does not forbid the inclusion of criticism from partisan sources either, so long as they are well sourced. We certainly report on major controversies of a campaign. --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

These issues were both brought out before he made his announcement to run for Governor. David Postman was basically bring up points of what he was hoping to hear from Rossi. Since he has just started his campaign, bringing these points out are irrelevant. If you allow critisizm from every columnist on issues, it would defeat the purpose of having an "encyclopedia" based web site. The encycolpedia should talk about relevant facts of a person, not what some columnist decided would be issues if he shose to run again for governor.--usesomelogic 17:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Read Postman's article again. Rossi was asked at his announcement press conference about his stance on SCHIP and the Roads and Transit Proposition and ducked the questions. He also ducked questions about his stance on the 9.5 cent gas tax that was on the ballot last year. Postman's article is clearly about how Rossi (and Gregoire) have missed opportunities to explain their positions on important issues. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If every article written critisizing a politician was posted in Wikepedia, wouldn't that be a little reduntant? Plus if he is being critical of Rossi AND Gregoire, then why does this only appear on his page? I just think that in keeping with a nuetral point of view (Oxford English Dictionary on the word "neutral": 1 impartial or unbiased. 2 having no strongly marked characteristics), this seems to be strongly marking a characteristic. If this were neutral then perhaps the sentance should read "critical of both Rossi AND Gregoire"? Wouldn't that be much more neutral?--usesomelogic 20:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usesomelogic (talk • contribs)

This article is about Dino Rossi so it would not be appropriate to include criticism of Christine Gregoire in this article. But just to repeat again, negative information about the subject of an article is acceptable as long as it is properly sourced and as neutrally worded as possible. Additionally, complaining about the lack of criticism on Gregoire's page on the talk page for Rossi's article is not going to get negative information added to Gregoire's page. If you have a concern about missing information on Gregoire's page, I suggest you take it to Talk:Christine Gregoire or add the information yourself. NPOV does not necessarily apply across multiple articles and the addition of information to one article is not predicated upon addition of other information to another article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, every criticism of someone should not be included (check out the policy itself for how it is used on Wikipedia. What seems to be at issue is undue weight (which has a section on the policy page). To my read, this criticism, which appeared in a major newspaper, is a reasonable one (and if it is also widely made by his opponents, then even more so). If that is not the issue at stake, what is more notable criticism? --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

"Improving business environment"

I've gone ahead and removed the following because the addition of it seems to be a violation of WP:SYN, in that by adding it the user seems to be implying that Washington's business environment is already improved and that Rossi is saying the state is currently not trying to improve the business environment. #5 in the country is not #1, so there is still room for improvement and Rossi is not making a claim that he will improve the state's ranking in comparison to other states, just that he'll improve the business environment.

“ even though Washington was ranked fifth in Forbes.com's second annual Top States for Business. Forbes.com stated: "Washington is the big story. The biggest mover (tied with Tennessee), rising from 12th to fifth place, Washington is also the only state to finish in the top five in three main categories (labor, regulatory environment and growth)." ”

So unless someone comes up with an argument why the above should be included, I'm thinking it should be left out. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No, you removed this information because you're pro-Rossi and used some tortured logic in the process. The point is this: the business climate has improved since Gregoire took office. The state went from 12th to 5th place, which is a big jump. "Still room for improvement"? Please... if Rossi thinks this is going to help him get elected he's in real trouble. The business leaders in Washington will maintain the status quo, whether you like it or not.

But for the sake of argument, what do you think Rossi will do to "improve" the business environment in this stake over what is happening now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.75.4 (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I've been accused of being pro-Rossi and anti-Rossi in the span of a week, nice. But anywho, please read up on WP:SYN. Just because Forbes says Washington's rank in the Top States has jumped from 12th to 5th does not mean that it can be used to draw a conclusion in regards to Rossi's goal. You will need to provide a reliable source that draws the conclusion before you can include it here. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Dino Rossi's "preferred party" in the 2008 election

All of the provided citations state that Rossi registered with the Washington Secretary of State as preferring the "G.O.P. Party." This is the registration that appears on the official election pages provided as citations supporting Rossi's information for the 2008 election. This is the registration that appeared in the primary voter information pamphlet, that appeared on the primary ballot, and will appear in both the general election voter information pamphlet and ballot. As long as these citations are used, it is a violation of Wikipedia standards to claim he ran as anything other than the "G.O.P. Party." If these citations are removed, they will be replaced because, after all, you can't get any more official and primary a source than the state Secretary of State's election information page. The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with standards of truthfulness; partisanship should not be a factor. TechBear (talk) 04:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The argument to replace party affiliation with the "Prefers XXXX Party" statement on the ballot suggests that a new party has been established called the "G.O.P. Party" and this candidate, Dino Rossi, has joined it and left the party known as the "Republican Party". There is no record of that having happened. The "preference" itself was concocted as a means to provide some indication in the new "Top Two" primary system of which party a candidate belonged to when the system itself was meant to eliminate party preference on the voters part. The system did not create a new party that has suddenly replaced the Republican party, and the term G.O.P., or Grand Old Party is merely a nickname for the official name, Republican Party. Dankirkd (talk) 05:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

TechBear, despite how Rossi registered with the state for this election, he is a Republican. This is also an assessment that Rossi and his campaign agrees with.[1] The G.O.P Party preference is just Rossi and the state Republicans taking advantage of the top two primary system to avoid the weak Republican brand name. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

So explain why Rossi's own stated, registered party preference should be ignored. Explain why the state's official elections information -- which Rossi has notably NOT challenged -- should be ignored. Until and unless you can do so, the standards of informational accuracy require that Rossi's own stated preference, as given in the official elections material, should be the information shown in this article and in the article Washington gubernatorial election, 2008. TechBear (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Having 'G.O.P. Party' redirect to the Republican Party should be sufficient to show that he has not actually changed his affiliation. For those who want to be technical about this, it's accurate. For those who want to show what he really means by that party reference, it's still accurate. I don't understand why there is an argument about this. He's a Republican, and he filed as "prefers GOP party". Seems simple enough. Chadlupkes (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Rossi registered as "Prefers G.O.P. Party." Please explain why this registered party preference, which is used on all official elections material, should be ignored. TechBear (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Because "Republican" is simpler, easier to understand and more widely known. His registration as "GOP Party" was, according to sources, a bid to muddy his affiliation with the Republican party and his campaign's obfuscation of those facts should not carry over to his Wikipedia article. All sources indicate he is a registered Republican so his party affiliation should not be in doubt on this article. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant. He registered as preferring "G.O.P. Party." His latter assertions are not relevant: Under state law, he registered and is running under the "G.O.P. Party" banner. The citations themselves all focus on this. Until and unless a different consensus is reached, this is the information that the article should reflect. TechBear (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

TechBear, what do you want to see, and what should it link to? I'm really confused on what this argument is about. Chadlupkes (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I want to see that the Wikipedia standards of Reliable Sources, Verifiability and Original Research are maintained. Rossi filed papers as a candidate claiming a party preference. Rossi's choice of party preference appeared on all documentation and information provided by the state's election office, including the ballots themselves. All of the sources cited within the article regarding to the 2008 election point out that Rossi is running under this stated party preference and not as a Republican; in several of the sources, his running as "G.O.P. Party" was the central point of the article.

I assert that lising him here as a Republican directly contradicts all of the reliable sources cited, cannot be verified according to reliable sources and amounts to original research. Why is is such a big deal to have factual information provided through the Wikipedia? TechBear (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that's fair. So what kind of facts and verified, reliable sources do you need to see to show that the Republican Party in Washington State is behind his campaign? How about the "Win Dino Win" dinner that they are advertising on the home page? Or the factcheck.dinorossi.com website advertised on both? Do you contest that GOP = Republican? Chadlupkes (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

How about documentation from the state elections office that Rossi filed and is running as preferring the Republican Party? Under state law regarding our new primary, the fact that a political party has endorsed a candidate is irrelevant: the candidate cannot treat that endorsement any differently than any other endorsement. The state Green Party has endorsed candidates, too; that did not make them candidates running under the Green Party banner.

Specifically on this point, that's not going to be possible. Official party affiliations were eliminated by I-872 which established the "Top-Two" primary. The Secretary of State and the County elections departments are not going to associate Dino Rossi with "the Republican party" because it's against the law. I agree that Wikipedia should have accurate information. That information consists of "prefers GOP party", and an explanation that "GOP party" is a nickname for the Republican party, which is well known by everyone. Chadlupkes (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the Wikilink for "G.O.P." pointing back to the article for the Republican Party. I do have a problem with incorrect information being presented in the Wikipedia. Rossi filed as preferring "G.O.P. Party," the office of the Secretary of State has given this filed preference as part of all official election information and that is how he will be listed on the November ballot. That is how he should be listed in the Wikipedia if it is to follow its own standards. TechBear (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• OK, you have one source, provided by the campaign, which uses the term "GOP Party." I have inserted four sources, by independent, third party newspapers, which identify him as a Republican. Using the term "GOP Party" is inaccurate (no such party exists) and misleading, since (as the sources suggest) it's being used to obfuscate his membership in the Republican party. You are now reiterating those same arguments here and are clearly trying to push a POV. You have violated 3RR on two pages now so this will shortly become a moot point. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I have the Secretary of State's own website regarding the 2008 Gubernatorial Election. I have elections materials prepared and distributed by every Washington county. I have the citations provided in both this and the Washington gubernatorial election, 2008‎ articles stating that Rossi file as and will be appearing on the ballot as preferring the "G.O.P. Party." I would hardly call that "one source provided by the campaign."

As I said before, you will have to convince me that Rossi's own candidate filing documents and all of the official elections information, including ballots, are incorrect and that news paper articles should be given more weight as a reliable source. I will not give this up until and unless you can do that. TechBear (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Because the ballots and "official elections information" comes from his filing with the Secretary of State's office. That filing originated from the Rossi campaign, meaning it is a POV and unreliable source. Calling this "official" in anyway is just flat out wrong. And his filing for "Prefers GOP Party" was limited to the primary election only. Again, that was his campaign's filing and their word choice and there are currently no sources on how he will appear on the actual general election ballot in November. So the neutral, reliable and verifiable information given by independent, third party sources in local newspapers is, I would say, infinitely more accurate than the POV and unreliable information given by his campaign. Really, I don't know why I'm still arguing about this and I'll just wait until you're blocked. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Because the ballots and "official elections information" comes from his filing with the Secretary of State's office.' Thank you for making my point: Rossi filed with the Secretary of State as having a preference for the "G.O.P. Party." As shown in the RCW citations I provided in Talk:Washington gubernatorial election, 2008, party affiliation or membership is not longer relevant under the Top Two primary. The stated party preference of the candidate given in the filing papers is. I assert that information on his filing of candidacy trumps all other sources. Unless you can show that Rossi committed a felony and deliberately misrepresented himself in his filing papers, you have no leg on which to stand. TechBear (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind the Secretary of State also erred on the "preference" of some candidates, in not making corrections as requested by the candidate. Another reason these preferences should not be used to denote a candidate's party affiliation. Dankirkd (talk) 22:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for comments

Dispute over whether the candidate's own filing with the State of Washington in the 2008 governor's race should be used to reflect his party preference, or reflect past party affiliation. Should Dino Rossi's party preference reflect his own filings for the 2008 Washington election for governor?

Discussion

I have made my case above and Talk page for Washington gubernatorial election, 2008. To reiterate for this discussion:

Under laws enabling Washington's new Top Two Primary, used for the first time this year, no candidate can list party affiliation or party membership. Instead, the law allows candidates to indicate "party preference" on the form that is filed with the Washington Secretary of State when they notify the state of their candidacy. This party preference, and not party affiliation or membership, is what appears on all official information regarding the elections, including official state and county websites regarding the election, voter information pamphlets and the ballots themselves.

When he filed as a candidate for Governor of Washington, Dino Rossi indicated that his party preference was the "G.O.P. Party." As a result, this was the party preference placed beside his name on official state and county websites, in the voter information pamphlets for the state primary held August 19, and on the primary ballot itself. Because he was one of the top two vote getters in the primary, this is the party preference that will appear beside his name on all official state and county websites, in the voter information pamphlets for the General Election, and on the General Election ballot itself.

It is my assertion that references to Rossi's party preference in the 2008 gubenatorial election, Rossi's listed party preference should reflect the information provided on his own filing papers, as this is the party preference that will appear on all official state and county websites, in the voter information pamphlets, and on the ballot. I further assert that efforts to change this information to "Republican Party" violates the Wikipedia standards of Reliable Sources, Verifiability and Original Research for the following reasons:

• One cannot find a more reliable source of candidate information than the documentation filed by the candidate with state election officials.

• All of the provided citations note that Rossi did NOT file as preferring the Republican Party in this election but rather filed as preferring the "G.O.P. Party." No citations have been provided which dispute the candidate's own filings, making claims that Rossi is running as a Republican not only unverifiable but in direct contradiction with the primary reliable source for the candidate.

• Because of the two above points, efforts to piece together documentation that Rossi is actually running as a Republican violate the Wikipedia rules regarding synthesis, thus violating the prohibition against original resource.

I have no problem with Wikilinks of G.O.P. pointing back to the article for the Republican Party. I feel very strongly that Wikipedia policies require that accurate information, as provided by the candidate himself to the state elections officials, be reflected correctly in the article. Rossi filed and ran with a stated preference for the "G.O.P. Party." The articles in question should reflect this. TechBear (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment for any RFC responders It should be noted that G.O.P. Party is a nickname for the Republican Party (United States) and despite how Rossi has registered with the Secretary of State, he is referred to by the local press[2] and the state Republican party as a Republican.[3] Heck, the state's Republican Party chairperson says the two terms are synonymous with each other.[4] The rebranding as G.O.P Party is just an attempt by the state Republican party to get away from the poor condition of the Republican brand. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That G.O.P. is a nickname for the Republican Party is not the issue. The issue is that all official references to Rossi's party preference state "G.O.P. Party." It is my contention that if Rossi had meant to run as a Republican, is filing papers would have stated a preference for "Republican Party." Since he stated a specific party preference, and because a preference of "G.O.P. Party" will be the one presented to the public, Wikipedia guidelines require that he be listed as running as a candidate for the "G.O.P. Party." TechBear (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)TechBear, the involved editors are already aware of your arguments and at this point you're in the minority as far as whether to refer to Rossi as "Prefers G.O.P Party" or Republican. My comment was intended for anyone who happens upon the RFC (Hence the bolded section), in order to give them more information. It is likely that some of the people that respond to the RFC are not familiar with American politics and as such, may not be aware that GOP Party=Republican and that the state chairperson says they are the same thing. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• To answer the question in a word: No. The "party preference" is not a substitute for a person's actual party affiliation and "G.O.P." is merely a nickname for "Republican Party". Are we going to establish a "Salmon Yoga" party page here? Are we going to create a new "Blue Dog Democratic" party? No. Dankirkd (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Under the Top Two primary system that the Legislature passed into law on March, 2004 and which was used for the first time this year after withstanding the scrutiny of the United States Supreme Court, a candidate's party affiliation or membership does not appear on any official information provided by state and county elections officials, nor does it appear on the ballot. What does appear, as required by state law, is the party preference given by the candidate. Because this state party preference replaces party affiliation on all official information, voter information pamphlets and ballots, it is my assertion that the candidate's stated party preference -- this case, "G.O.P. Party" -- should be the one included in Wikipedia articles. I have yet to see any arguments as to why this should not be the case. TechBear (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately Wikipedia isn't bound by Washington state law, but rather by WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. The preponderance of evidence within reliable sources, including the comments made by Rossi's campaign and the state Republican party, shows that Dino Rossi is a Republican and as a result, his political affiliation within this article and the 2008 election article correctly say he is Republican. If you would like a paragraph can be added to the 2008 election covering the reasons why Rossi has submitted "Prefers GOP Party" to the SoS, but this article should represent reality, not an attempt by Rossi to rebrand his political affiliation. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Jesus, you guys. Look, as the cites indicate, Rossi's campaign filed his paperwork with the term "G.O.P." and not with the term "Republican". As of this year, with the top-two primary, a candidate basically gets to "fill in a blank". They can say they "prefer the sugar-plum-dunking party" if they want to. KOMO has a FAQ [5] which indicates that the ballot information now has no relation to any action by any party (such as nomination of a candidate). Now, Rossi is not on the ballot as "prefers G.O.P. party" because the Secretary of State (who is Republican, incidentally) made a mistake -- it's because that's what Rossi's campaign put on his paperwork. See [6]. Other candidates actually put "Republican", and are listed as such on the ballot.

So yeah, Rossi is a Republican, and yeah, the Republican Party of Washington has endorsed him, but that's not how he actually appeared on the ballot. So the table of primary results should indicate the party preference that was on the ballot. One culd make an argument that anything else is WP:OR. (I would argue that includes linking "GOP" to anything but "GOP".) - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• The use of the term "Prefers G.O.P. Party" should be confined to any discussion about the primary but cannot be extrapolated to Rossi's race in the general election, since there are no sources indicating how he will appear on the ballot and all cited newspaper sources currently refer to him (absent his run in the primary) as a Republican. This is what should be reflected in his infobox and the lede of the article. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's the bit that brought me here, honestly, so I'm going to change it back over there. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 00:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

(outside opinion) The terms GOP and Republican party mean precisely the same thing. And this fact is something that is pretty much common sense to anyone who follows US Politics. Therefore, IMO arguing over which term to use resembles tendentitous editing. Since "Republican party" is the better known term, listing him as such is fine.Ngchen (talk) 00:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the comment above about "there are no sources indicating how he will appear on the [general] ballot" is wrong. I-872 says:

For partisan office, if a candidate has expressed a party or independent preference on the declaration of candidacy, then that preference will be shown after the name of the candidate on the primary and general election ballots.... (boldface mine)

So Rossi will appear on the general just as he did on the primary (well, now that the whole lawsuit from earlier this week has been dismissed). The online General Election Voter's Guide also includes the preferences. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 22:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

very minor updates

Added PBS reference to replace old poll link. Added court decision link for name of party on ballot. Collect (talk) 19:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The references I added were far newer than the old ones. Going back to outdated articles seems odd. If you wish to keep this article 5 months old -- tell me here, rather than reverting. Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Consensus overwhelmingly opposes the partisan changes you are attempting to make to this article. Do not change it back without extensive discussion on this page. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• You've also inserted several spelling errors and have misrepresented the findings of Judge Eadie. These edits fail WP:NPOV and are symptomatic of political posturing on Wikipedia, which won't be tolerated. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I intended no spelling errors, I am sorry that such will not be tolerated by you.

Moreover I did add a CURRENT reference to polls, while you reverted to MARCH. I would suggest that seeking to make a page LESS CURRENT is odd. As for saying I misrepresented a judge, I sought to cite the precise rticle which I found, and which is CURRENT. Is there a reason you want the article to be six months out of date? Collect (talk) 22:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• You sought to take a tiny fraction of the opinion and ignore the rest of what the judge said about the ballot references to Dino Rossi's party. It makes your partisan bent pretty transparent. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh? It makes my desire to update a page which was woefully out of date more current. You desire to see partisanship on any issues is amazing. I note you are active in the Grigoire article? Collect (talk) 12:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• For the last time, it's spelled Gregoire, with an e. Any reference to the GOP Party ballot issue has already been covered in this article and does not need to be repeated, so those edits will be reverted. Any edits to fundraising totals belong in the article on the election, and not this one, and not in that level of detail and the wording that you've used in your edits will be scrutinized and reverted for any bias. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for spelling -- I am not a (sic) patrol member. The BALLOT is current news, and as such belongs. You are not the one in charge -- I have not seen anyone else weigh in as vehemently as you. Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'll give it a day and then I'm reverting your changes. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Just to be clear: Dino Rossi's campaign website cannot be included because it is not a verifiable, reliable source. A blog cannot be used as a source because it fails WP:RS. The Snohomish county ballot is irrelevant since the dispute over the ballot issue is already covered. Your mentioning that twice in two sentences in that paragraph is equally irrelevant. All other changes that you've made are biased, nonneutrally worded or otherwise meant to malign the Governor. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Dino Rossi's web site is a vakid reference for what Dino Rossi's website says. As is the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and every other site you seem to wish kept out of the article. Your single-minded insistence on your own wording is contray to WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NPOV and a host of other dicta. And since NOT A SINGLE ONE of my changes refers to the "Governor", I wonder just what you have been reading. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 01:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• WP:RS forbids the use of blogs as sources. Dino Rossi's website also fails the criterion set by that guideline, since it is a nonneutral, unverifiable and unreliable source. These, therefore, cannot be used to source anything in the article and should (will) be removed. The statements they supported would thereby be orphaned and would thus also have to be removed. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting since you insisted on using a blog in another article. Do you oppose all use of anything labeled a "blog" or do you allow use of sources marked "blog"? By the way, I can use the Secretary of State's records if you insist. And "official campaign sites" are used in articles on Obama and many others -- have you deleted those references by any chance? Collect (talk) 04:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'll go ahead and invite you to furnish proof on my use of a blog as a reference. Using the secretary of state's records in this case would not add anything useful to this article, since they are already used a reference in the discussion in this article about the exact same issue you're trying to find sourcing for. Campaign sites cannot be used as a reference for any controversial statement in this article and I would invite you to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to help you understand why that argument doesn't hold any water. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

First -- do not mark your additions to this page as "minor" -- that is for fixing typos etc.

Second -- the Secretary of State is considered a "[rimary source" in reference terms. As you do not want to allow a campaign to be cited for what it says the campaign does (huh???!!), the prmary reference for the reports filed with the state is the actual reports.

Third -- if you do not allow a campaign to be cited for saying what it has done, and you do not allow the actual reports to be used, just whay primary sources do you allow?

Fourth -- I can find NO articles on politicians which have refused references from the campaign sites. Not only, for example, is Gregpire's campaign site used as an external link, her official gubernatorial site is used as a reference, and sites which hare political in nature are used as references for opinion pieces.

Fifth -- how can a cite saying how much money has been raised be considered "controversial" when a primary source is used for the actual reports? Note the Gregoire article ALSO uses the Secretary of State as a primary source.

Thanks Collect (talk) 11:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

And of course your surprise raid on Westbrook Pegler to reinsert an opinion piece as a reference. Forgot that one? Collect (talk) 11:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Consensus opposes the changes you are attempting to make. Do not reinsert them without strong consensus on this page. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Um -- have you noticed that you are the ONLY person claiming that you are consensus incarnate? As I doubt that such is true, try reasoning with me as to why 2007 polls are extremely relevant when later polls are available? Collect (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Read the rest of the conversations on this page. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 02:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion

I see a number of different issues here.

• Collect, you should not include current poll stats. They change too often to be useful.
• I agree with Cumulus Clouds that a Snohomish County ballot scan isn't particularly useful.
• If the article had fundraising in it before, I don't see why that shouldn't be updated. Can you both agree that fundraising numbers should be updated?
• Regarding the blog source, the one from Seattle PI is perfectly acceptable per WP:V: ""Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested ..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources."
• Likewise, the relevant parts of WP:V dealing with the use of non-independent sources are WP:SELFPUB and WP:SPS. Rossi's campaign site IS an acceptable source for what Rossi says, for instance, or a variety of other non-controversial things. Rossi's website is a good source for what Rossi says, but not about what Gregoire says--that would violate the "does not involve claims about third parties" clause.
• Having said that, I don't really see that a major POV issue remains if the proposed edits are tweaked to come into line with what I've noted above. Can you gentlemen put together a version that incorporates these, and then figure out what disputes remain? Jclemens (talk) 06:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hope that helps

OK. All polls deleted. If new polls are not used, old polls are irrelevant. The ballot scan is given as a REFERENCE, hence remains. CC has directly above said "WP:RS forbids the use of blogs as sources. Dino Rossi's website also fails the criterion set by that guideline, since it is a nonneutral, unverifiable and unreliable source. These, therefore, cannot be used to source anything in the article and should (will) be removed. The statements they supported would thereby be orphaned and would thus also have to be removed. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC) " As he is inconsistent, I feel that I have the right to use his stated position. Sound ok? Meanwhile, I have identified the blogs as sources. Lastly, I find (sic) patrolling to be outre. Collect (talk) 11:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC) Collect (talk) 11:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• I've updated all the sources that were in contention with neutral, third party articles that don't reference Dino Rossi's website. JClemens has pointed out that ballot scan is unnecessary, so I've removed that too. I've also removed a bunch of POV wording you inserted and restored the reference to Dino running as a republican, which you also removed. Please discuss your changes here first before making them in the article and do not remove any of the sources I've inserted, as that would be considered vandalism. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I followed Jclemens wishes to the letter. And you are STILL reverting? Sheesh! Collect (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• If you continue to remove sources from this article I will report you for vandalism and you will face sanctions. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Threatening me for trying to follow the opinion of a third party whom you asked for an opinion? Sheesh. This article is now trash, and your threats do not improve its quality one iota. Collect (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• That's great. Resorting to vandalism is equally destructive to the quality of the article and I would suggest you refrain from doing it again. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I intended no "vandalism" at all. If there is to be no poll after March 5, then that poll likewise should not be mentioned. That is how I read Jclemens suggestion supra. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You might wish to look at this PBS (no POV) site: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/politics/july-dec08/wa_gov_09-24.html Collect (talk) 01:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• The writing used in citing that source was terrible and needed to be completely rewritten. Instead of doing that, I found a more recent source, which is neutral and uses updated numbers, and then I sourced it correctly using the in-line template. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry you dislike the PBS "writing." It took you eons after I posted in Talk to notice. I did not immediately use the PBS source which has bad "writing" until it looked like you were ignoring all newer polls. I shall tell PBS that they write badly. Thanks. Collect (talk) 04:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I find the blog to be no better written than the PBS article. Amazing. I thought you opposed all blogs? Collect (talk) 04:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And since I have no horse in the race, I find it neat that you chose a cite that "reads nonneutrally." I don't actually care what new polls say, all I ask is that they be presented with greater weight than ones from six months back. Fair enough? Collect (talk) 04:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• You'll have a pretty tough time convincing anybody that your edits weren't explicitly promotional for Dino Rossi and his campaign. This poll is nonneutral for lots of reasons, most notably that it's recent, it comes from a reliable source and shows the race at a statistical tie. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh? The source you did not like was from Sep 25. I did NOT touch your source which was later. And note further that your source agrees with the earlier PBS source for the polls on the date of the PBS source. I do not take Dunninger poills to know what future polls will say, nor does PBS. As I don't have any connection whatsoever with Rossi or Gregoire or the state of Washington, I assert that I am neutral (NPOV) to a fault. Thanks! Collect (talk) 05:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

minor edits

Marking a revert as a "minor edit" is contrary to WP rules. You are at 3RR now. Thank you. Collect (talk) 00:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Do not remove sourced text. This constitutes vandalism and will result in your block. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No "sourced text" was tremoved. You repeatedly use "minor edit" for your reverts. You have now reverted three times, violating the 3RR rule. 2007 is no longer "recent." Collect (talk) 11:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Children's names are not disputed, source removed as it is unneeded. Collect (talk) 12:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I would think the children's name would not be included at all. Regardless of it being sourced or not, their names are not important to Dino Rossi's notability and WP has had a tendency to not include the names of minors in articles unless they bear some importance upon the subject's notability or are common knowledge. I don't believe that either of these conditions are met by Rossi's children. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 15:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Since the standard template lists "children" I would suspect that most BLPs do, in fact, list children. I do not think that their names are somehow a POV matter. Nor, by the way, do most BLPs give a reference for children's names. If you feel the names are disputed, please tell me. Collect (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless the children's names are common knowledge or are important to the subject's notability, most BLPs only include the number of children in the field, not their names. See Wikipedia:BLP#Privacy of names for additional information. That's how it was in this article prior to this edit by User:The Man in Question. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Number and gender then does not require any discussion? Collect (talk) 17:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why their genders are important, but if it floats your boat, no problem from me. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

We know their genders. Their names and genders have been widely reported. It is unlikely that reporting their genders could be of any "privacy" problem. The names were there, and you thought they should not be. Either I just put in "4" or I enumerate them by gender. I figure if the info is not even something which needs a reference, and can not conceivably raise POV issues, then put it in. Collect (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

actual vandalism

IP152 in history seems a determnined vandal. Sending him a gracious note. Collect (talk) 20:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Others managed to mess up entire infobox format. Considering some of the "revisions" it was best to go back to last clean copy. Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Mea culpa -- I missed vandalism -- Cumulus Clouds went back to actual clean copy. Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• You don't need to post a notice here every time you revert vandalism, that's pointless and wastes everyones time. Just do it and move on. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that. I just thought it was a polite way of informing vandals that they were not getting away with it. I have gotten rid of some of them this way <g>. Collect (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

blogs not refs

Per CC's comments above, blogs used as refs are removable. Especially when their only use is to duplicate an already acceptable source. Thanks! Collect (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• I do not believe that. Do not use my name to make any more of your (woefully incorrect) assertions any further. Your attempts at whitewashing this article to promote your favorite candidate will not be tolerated by anyone on this encyclopedia. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

How polling is used

I have a problem with how polling is being used in this article. Particularly, this paragraph: "A poll in early October showed Rossi tied with Governor Gregoire in the race for Governor. A more recent poll by the Elway Group shows Rossi trailing Gov. Gregoire by 12 percent" The problem I'm having is that you can't really compare two different polls (First sentence is Rasmussen, second sentence is Elway) because every polling agency uses their own weighting systems to determine the percentages and therefore polls from different polling agencies can not be used to counter each other. In the case of Rasmussen, they tend to have a small Republican lean in their national polls and I'd expect this to translate into their state-level polls as well and from what I've seen of Elway tends to have a fairly significant Democratic lean in their polls. But realistically, this article in general puts too much emphasis on polling. The important factoid is not that Rossi was ahead on X date by X amount according to one poll, but Gregoire was ahead on Y date by y amount according to another part, the important factoid is that the polling shows that this race started close in 2007, Gregoire took a slight lead during the summer, and that the race is currently close again... The best way to do this is to use a single polling agency and to use that as a source or to go with a "Poll of polls" method. Personally, I'd use Rasmussen if the decision is to use a single polling agency as that one seems to have the easiest way of keeping track of the trends[7] or if the decision is to use a poll of polls methodology, then pollster is always a good thing to use.[8] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Alas, read the struggle supra to get any polls in this article after 2007. Granted polls change, but I think that f we keep only 2007 data that we are cheating readers who expect something a teensy bit more up to date, no? Collect (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Where are you getting that I'm suggesting that only 2007 polling data be used? I'm not saying that they can't be used and that they can't have up to date information, but rather that the current "This poll says this, that poll says that" method that is currently being used is not the best method to use. Poll porn can be fun, but the details are just a distraction to the overall flow of the race. This is especially true when the article tries to compare polls from different polling agencies. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I certainly did not mean to imply that you only wanted the 2007 polls! My point is that those polls are noy quite irrelevant, and that this was something I pushed for strongly. BTW, learned in a bunch of statistics courses why averaging polls is unsound scientifically. Best is to use a "rolling poll" where fudge factors are not used, and the poll is only used to spot changes rather than try to guess at actual percentages. Rasmussen et al like using monthly fudge factors which are, so far, unproven. Collect (talk) 22:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately there aren't any rolling polls tracking WA-Gov, so that's a bit of a moot point. You are also correct that averaging polls together is not a good method for exact numbers. However, poll of polls do have a place in determining trend lines and trends are exactly what Wikipedia articles should be including. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

multiple sources using the same original source

The multiple sources reporting on a single poll all are based on a single source. It is silly to cite every reference to the same data. Especially since the person putting them in made a big point supra about such sources not being allowable here. Each claim needs only one reference. See WP:REF Collect (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Collect, there is a huge difference between a blog that is maintained by random person on the internet (i.e. www.horsesass.org or www.soundpolitics.com) versus a "blog" that is actually an article from a columnist on a reliable source. That being said, I'll self-revert as I was basing my revert on your faulty edit summary and the sources you were removing under that edit summary, rather than your rather accurate assessment that it is unnecessary to provide three secondary sources that reference the same primary source. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I apologize -- it was entirely too tempting to refer to another editor's previously strongly held position on "blogs". The real reason, as I noted to you, is simply WP:REF. Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Hey how about you give that a rest. I've already said that I agree blog posts that are run by reliable sources can be included. You know I said that, you acknowledged it when I said it, and you agreed with it when I did. This basically boils down to you making a personal attack against me as part of your grudge war over articles for conservative politicians. Personally, I'm surprised you haven't been blocked for this yet. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Forget the past. Just use WP:REF. Sound ok? Collect (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• You are the one who brought this up. You are the one who has continually resisted any efforts to make this article neutral. You ignore protocol whenever it suits you and begin citing it whenever you need to wikilawyer your way out of something. You removed that statement saying it needed reliable sources. You challenged the validity of the statement, I sourced it heavily to prevent any such challenges in the future and then you removed it the sourcing. Under what line of logic would you say that wasn't an incredibly biased attempt to sidestep your challenge to the facts here? Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed no sources called for by WP:REF. The added sources traced back to the same real source. I removed absolutely no correctly sourced information. Clear? Now can we get on with making this a decent article? Thanks! Collect (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

State of Washington Election Returns

http://vote.wa.gov/elections/wei/Results.aspx?RaceTypeCode=O&JurisdictionTypeID=2&ElectionID=26&ViewMode=Results

Gregoire is listed as "Prefers Democratic Party" and Rossi as "Prefers G.O.P. Party" on election site. Collect (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Since that is what the source gives, a click away from the article, there is no need to include the word "[sic]" in the article. Using it that way talks down to people, and Wikipedia does not do that. There is no reason to tenditiously revert to the more clumsy wording that includes that. Jonathunder (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)